Mana Drain Mana, A rules nightmare

[forests failed you]

Okay, so I've been having a conversation about Mana Drain mana with Evey judge at every tournament I go to.  Here is how Mana Drain should work...

At the beginning of my next mainphase I announce that I Mana Drain's trigger needs to go onto the stack, and thus put the Mana onto the stack.  I can either respond or pass priority to my opponent, and then after we have both passed priority on the Mana Drain trigger I regain priority with the Mana Drain mana in my pool.

However, here is where it gets tricky and the judges seem to not only give me different rulings, but completely disagree about how this should work.

What happens when a player forgets to put the Mana Drain ability onto the stack?  And this is not an easy question to answer, I've had it ruled by many different ways by head judges at large scale events (GenCon, SCG Chicago, and SCG Richmond).

Some Judges will rule it as it was assumed that the trigger went onto the stack and resolved (even though neither player acknowledged it) and thus when the player ends that particular mainphase they take mana burn.  I've also had Judges back up the game state (provided that it can be backed up and no cards have been drawn or something of that sort) and had the game be played out from there.  I have also been in situations where a turn or so later when it was discovered that a player should have had mana, which did not get used, and that because both players missed the trigger no damage for mana burn gets assigned since both players missed the mistake and that decisions have thus taken place with players believing a certain life total was such so it can't be changed. 

I have also been in a situation where a player forgot he had Mana and at the end of his turn the opponent said "so, you burn for three from your Drain mana."  and the player who should have gotten the Mana called a judge, annoyed that his opponent deliberately muddled the game state by not reminding him to put the Drain Mana on the stack.  The head judge of this event sided with player who should have gotten the Drain mana and penelized the player who purposely didn't remind the other player about his trigger for deliberately allowing the gamestate to go into disarray.

I guess the main question is (and I am more concerned with whether anybody knows the actual answer to this rather than personal opinions on the matter, since I've heard plenty of those) in the event that both players forget about Mana Drain's trigger and a turn passes, is it actually the correct ruling to go back and correct the life total for mana burn that would have taken place, or, is it the case that since both players missed the mistake and decisions have been made based upon knowledge of particular life totals do you just move on as such.

A very good friend of mine, who is also a level two judge, started a dialog about this issue within the judging community and the debate is actually quite fierce about all of the intricacies of this card.  For instance, the "so you burn for 3 because you forgot about your mana approach" has been a common misconception for some time, and many people still believe that it is a techy and skillful way to get ahead.  With that stigma attached to Mana Drain there is an incentive for an opponent to purposely muddle the gamestate by not having triggers to to the stack and resolve the right way.

Does anybody know the actual text-book procedures for dealing with all of these problems?

[Komatteru]

Content deleted.  I thought my response was correct according to DCI rules (I'm not a judge though), but apparently I had some stuff wrong.  I don't want to confuse anyone, so it's better that it be deleted.

[epeeguy]

This is not an easily answered question, and deals with several aspects of judging philosophy that have been decided upon by the powers that be.  Unfortunately, JDizzle's answer is not entirely correct, and in some respects is not in accordance with the philosophy of the DCI.  So, I'm afraid that I must post a slightly contradictory answer.

Firstly, the current philosophy regarding mandatory triggered abilities is that they do not have to be specifically announced and resolved, provided they do not target.  So, if a mandatory triggered ability is triggered and then goes on the stack, players are not required to specifically acknowledge that trigger.  They do have to acknowledge anything that changes the game state, but they do not have to specifically mention the triggering occurs.  So, if you have a Chalice of the Void with 2 counters on it in play and your opponent plays a spell with a CMC of 2, then you do not have to say that the Chalice triggered.  However, you are required to ensure that your opponent does not attempt to resolve the spell (as it was countered due to the Chalice).

Now, how this impacts Mana Drain is basically as follows: Mana Drain's trigger is mandatory and does not require a target.  Therefore, it does not have to be announced or acknowledged.  However, this still means that the players must acknowledge the change in the game state; so they must acknowledge the mana that was added to the mana pool.  They cannot just play as if it wasn't there.  So, if the opponent is aware that the mana is in the pool, and the player of the Mana Drain is oblivious to it, the opponent must acknowledge the presence of the mana in the pool.  Which probably means informing the player that it is there.  If the opponent is aware of the mana and deliberately withholds that information from the player (that is, it can be determined that the opponent knew and specifically avoided saying something to gain an advantage), then it can be regarded as Cheating (that is going to depend on very specific circumstances and there is no way to address it in 100% entirety).  However, if it were accidental in nature then it is unlikely to be more severe than a Procedural Error of some kind and the game state may have to be corrected (and that will also depend on specific circumstances as well).

That being said, in an actual situation, the judge would have to determine exactly what occured and what had been happening during the course of the game.  If the player of the Mana Drain had long been acknowledging the addition of mana (but not the trigger itself) and using the mana without any reminders, then the player in question was responsible for the mana and should have been tracking it.  It is not necessarily the opponent's responsibility at this point to ensure that the mana was actually used.  However, a judge would have to review the circumstances and determine to what extent that the opponent did know this and did try to gain an advantage in this fashion.  For example, if the player simply went from his draw for the turn and then immediately went to declare his attack, before the opponent could say anything, then it is the player's failure at this point and the opponent will not be penalized.  On the other end, if the player did a bunch of different things in a very methodical fashion, and the opponent could have made a comment at any point in time (especially with regards to the use of other mana sources), then it may not be handled exactly the same.  It is likely that the reason you are getting contradictory answers is because different judges are seeing different pieces of the situation and arriving at different conclusions.

There was a very long discussion regarding this issue on the DCI Judge listserv a couple of months ago, and I would strongly advise you to read it.  Suffice it to say, it is not an easy issue and the application of certain policies may be dependent upon the specific situation that comes up.  There is no blanket answer to this question, however, and you are likely not to get a uniform answer to this.

[Moxlotus]

So...if your opponent draws a card and says "go", since you didn't have a chance to say anything he will take 3 damage?  But if he was doing stuff like tapping 3 lands to cast Intuition, you are expected to say something?

If so, that seems weird.  That is saying that if I don't help my opponent use his mana optimally in this situation (which if he doesn't, like he is tapping 3 islands so he can't drain next turn), I am cheating.  I'm not misrepresenting game state, I'm just not flat out telling my opponent how to play his turn optimally.

Here's another situation:

I get 4 drain mana this turn.  I have 3 lands in play.  My opponent has 5.  At the beginning of the mainphase, I don't announce the mana trigger.

I play Intuition, tapping my 3 lands.  My opponent taps down to play a Power Sink for 4.  I use my 4 drain mana that he forgot about.  Would this be misrepresenting the game state?  I didn't try to actively cheat, like casting a medallion into Chalice for 2, I was just letting a trigger that doesn't have to be announced go unnannounced.

[Moxlotus]

I went to SCG's ask the judge...

On Sep 12, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Philip Schmitt wrote:

> My opponent counters my Yawgmoth's Will with Mana
> Drain.  During his turn, he draws a card and then
> passes turn.  I then point out that he had 3 Drain
> mana.  Does he take 3 damage?  Should the game be
> backed up?  Did I misrepresent the game-state by not
> reminding him of the Drain trigger at the beginning of
> the turn?

A: What really happens depends on the presiding judge.  However it is 
the general philosophy that a triggered ability can not pass unknown 
to both players.  In this example I have no problem having this turn 
backed up so to the first main phase so this player can spend the mana.

-Chris

He didn't really answer my question, because it should be obvious that since, in the scenario I pointed out, I said "you take 3".  He even says what happens depends on the judge-which makes absolutely no sense to me.

[epeeguy]

So...if your opponent draws a card and says "go", since you didn't have a chance to say anything he will take 3 damage?  But if he was doing stuff like tapping 3 lands to cast Intuition, you are expected to say something?

According to the philosophy that has been communicated by the DCI, this is effectively the case.  If you are aware of a "difference" in the game state that your opponent is not aware of, you cannot remain silent on it.  You must ensure the accuracy of the game state at all times, which means you have to advise your opponent or call a judge if there is a perceived difference in the game state.  While you may not have to acknowledge the actual Mana Drain trigger, you do have to acknowledge the change in the game state.  If you are interested in the discussion on the Judge list, then you can look at some of the following posts:

http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0508A&L=dcijudge-l&P=R2056
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0508A&L=dcijudge-l&P=R2343
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0508A&L=dcijudge-l&P=R2566
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0508A&L=dcijudge-l&P=R2978
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0508A&L=dcijudge-l&P=R4404&m=22852

All of these offer a variety of comments on the situation, with the last being something of the "official" stance on the issue.  Again, you're going to find many different opinions on the subject about exactly how this should be handled.

If so, that seems weird.  That is saying that if I don't help my opponent use his mana optimally in this situation (which if he doesn't, like he is tapping 3 islands so he can't drain next turn), I am cheating.  I'm not misrepresenting game state, I'm just not flat out telling my opponent how to play his turn optimally.

I'm sorry this appears "weird" to you, but this is pretty straightforward to me.  Omiting information about the game state can potentially (and please note that this is what I previously said) be construed as Cheating.  It falls under the same rules regarding Misrepresentation that would govern intentionally misrepresenting what a card does, or what life total you are at.  This may be a situation where it isn't simply "misleading" anymore, and has crossed the line into "misrepresentation".  And you are certainly not allowed to do that.

That being said, and as I previously indicated, there is no way I or any other judge can give a "blanket" answer regarding this.  There are many variables that can be taken into consideration by a ruling judge on what did, or did not, transpire.  It would be highly inappropriate for me (or any other judge) to give you an answer that is construed as such.  So, I'm sorry, but I will not answer the question you posed; not to be obstinate, but rather it is inappropriate for me to give an answer that would appear to be "setting policy", let alone trying to set a precident for situations that I may not have specifically meant to address.

[Moxlotus]

Omiting information about the game state can potentially (and please note that this is what I previously said) be construed as Cheating.

This is the thing I'm confused about.  I'm not omitting any information about the game state.  I haven't done something and not tell my opponent.  It isn't even my affect.  I am simply aware of what my opponent's cards allow him to do.

My opponent has 3 lands and an untapped birds of paradise.  He casts lightning bolt.  I mana leak.  He sits there, doesn't realize that he can tap his birds (while I realize it), and goes "oh well, I can't pay the 3-its countered".  Is this omitting information about the game game state?

It is the exact same thing-my opponent has mana available and doesn't realize it, but I do.

[NWI Team_Zilla]

I have also been in a situation where a player forgot he had Mana and at the end of his turn the opponent said "so, you burn for three from your Drain mana." and the player who should have gotten the Mana called a judge, annoyed that his opponent deliberately muddled the game state by not reminding him to put the Drain Mana on the stack. The head judge of this event sided with player who should have gotten the Drain mana and panelized the player who purposely didn't remind the other player about his trigger for deliberately allowing the gamestate to go into disarray.

I understand that both players are responsible for knowing the gamestate, but why is it the opponent's fault?  He isn't the one who forgot about his Mana Drain mana, he's the one that knows what a card does and wants to get ahead by knowing the gamestate and reporting it.  But that is just my opinion, I also have seen it ruled many different ways, which leads many, I believe, to not say anything, and thus their opponent doesn't get Mana Drain mana and they are not penalized for reporting something.  Which gets that player almost advantage as if they had forced their opponent to burn for 3. 
Anyway you would think that WotC would have released an errata for it by now considering judges are seemingly inconsistent about their rulings.

[epeeguy]

This is the thing I'm confused about.  I'm not omitting any information about the game state.  I haven't done something and not tell my opponent.  It isn't even my affect.  I am simply aware of what my opponent's cards allow him to do.

And that's the point.  You are not allowed to let such a condition exist intentionally.  If you are aware of a discrepancy in the game state, whether it was caused by your effect or your opponent's effect, then you must correct the game state.  That's your responsibility as a player, as set down in the Universal Tournament Rules (Section 13).

My opponent has 3 lands and an untapped birds of paradise.  He casts lightning bolt.  I mana leak.  He sits there, doesn't realize that he can tap his birds (while I realize it), and goes "oh well, I can't pay the 3-its countered".  Is this omitting information about the game game state?

It is the exact same thing-my opponent has mana available and doesn't realize it, but I do.

The scenario you propose is not the same thing.  A more germaine scenario would be:

You attack with random 2/2.  Opponent blocks with 1/3.  Opponent, not realizing his creature lives through the attack, puts it in the graveyard.  You say nothing and continue to play as if the 1/3 should be in the graveyard, even though you know it shouldn't be there.

This is more germaine because the situation is more like a misunderstanding of the game state between the two players as to what should happen, which is like the Mana Drain trigger.  You know something is happening, and are choosing not to correct the game state.  This omission can be construed (as noted by many judges in the thread) as being some kind of Procedural Error, Unsporting Conduct or even Cheating.  Or it could be nothing at all.  The exact circumstances in any given situation are going to differ, so there's no "generic" answer to give.  And there never will be.

So, no, you are not required to advise the opponent of what they can or can't do.  But you are required to ensure that the game state is correct.  So, if they misrecord the damage they suffer, you must correct them.  If they don't draw the correct number of cards from an effect, you must correct this.  If some rules infraction occurs, and you notice it, you must either correct your opponent or call a judge and inform them of what happened.  And if you willingly choose not to do this, then it is violation of the rules.  I don't know how more specific I can be about this.

@NWI Team_Zilla:  The reason there's no "consistency" is because every circumstance is going to be different.  Trying to arbitrarily set a policy for how to handle Mana Drain is only going to take away from the ability of a judge to weigh the various circumstances that may be present.  A "one size fits all" approach doesn't work, and only makes the game more unfair to players and takes away from the ability to actually apply the appropriate penalty.

I'm sorry if this feels "unfair" or "wrong" to either of you, but this is the policy as best I can describe it.

[Mark_Story]

moxlotus:  I think the mana leak example is very different to the mana drain issue. I think the difference is centred on the fact that the mana drain is a trigger that must happen, and both players are responsible for maintaining proper game state.  I personally just mention mana drain on their draw step, or give them a dice when they resolve the drain, that way they have a physical reminder that at some point they will have mana drain mana.  The mana leak example differs in that your opponent is unaware of what possiblities for play he has.  He has not missed an important trigger that both players are responsible for taking care of.

[Liam-K]

I always thought you were "supposed to" (though I may be totally wrong) announce which mana you are using if you have more than the cost of a spell floating, and not just for mana drain.  Granted, this doesn't come up much, but hypothetical scenario:

You are playing storm combo.  You have RBGU floating, and you announce Wheel of Fortune.  At this point, I thought you were supposed to also announce which colour of mana you have left floating, as it will effect what you can play from your new hand.  If you leave Black up for Ritual, and you draw into Crop Rotation or Ancestral... you get the point.

This is relevant because in the above tap 3 lands, announce Intuition with 4 drain mana floating example, assuming at least two of the lands tapped produce coloured mana, I thought you were supposed to inquire as to how much of what mana is still floating.  So then if intuition-casting-person goes "huh?" it means you have to remind them about their Drain mana.


I'm not a judge and maybe you don't even have to declare which mana is still floating, but I think that if you do it's a reasonable way of gauging whether or not an opponent should have intervened.  If the player with drain mana up passes the phase without paying for anything that could have been payed for with colourless mana, it's reasonable to assume that person was aware of his drain mana and didn't use it (edit: from the point of view of his opponent).  If the player with drain mana could have used the mana on something he DID do, then you should be finding out which mana is being spent.

Am I right here?

[Kerith]

But if I am not mistaken, the example Moxlotus gave was not "you burn for 3", but that your opponent taps three islands for a mainphase Intuition although they still have Drain mana in their pool. And this case is exactly like the Mana Leak one and there is no way you have to ask your opponent whether he is sure he likes to do that since you are misrepresenting absolutely nothing. It is absolutely possible that having in their pool is exactly what your opponent wants, for example if it won't matter because he wants to play an artifact for anyways.

[Moxlotus]

But if I am not mistaken, the example Moxlotus gave was not "you burn for 3", but that your opponent taps three islands for a mainphase Intuition although they still have Drain mana in their pool. And this case is exactly like the Mana Leak one and there is no way you have to ask your opponent whether he is sure he likes to do that since you are misrepresenting absolutely nothing. It is absolutely possible that having in their pool is exactly what your opponent wants, for example if it won't matter because he wants to play an artifact for anyways.

Exactly, I could say "I thought he was going to use the 3 mana for a later spell" and that may/may not be the case-but it would be impossible to tell if I was lying or telling the truth.

[Jacob Orlove]

It's possible, for example, that the opponent wants to use that mana to help cast Frantic Search or something, so he's tapping lands to play other spells first. As the opponent, we'd really have no way to know.

[Komatteru]

From #mtgjudge in IRC:

[23:56] <JDizzle--> ok, I have a question about mana drain
[23:57] <JDizzle--> ok, so my opponent drains something for, say, 3
[23:58] <JDizzle--> neither one of us say anything at the very beginning of his mainphase, and he taps 3 lands to play intuition
[23:58] <JDizzle--> do we have to go back and remind him about the drain mana?
[23:58] <JDizzle--> or does saying "so you're leaving 3 floating"?
[23:58] <JDizzle--> cover that
[23:59] <JDizzle--> and does he get to go back and retap if he has forgotten about the drain mana, but I remind him?
[00:00] <LeeSharpe> JDizzle--: Mandatory triggered abilites and announcing them are a hot topic among judges.  The current Official policy is that untargetted mandatory triggered abilities do NOT need to be announced, nor does mana in the pool.
[00:00] <JDizzle--> (this has become a recent debate on TMD)
[00:00] <JDizzle--> ok
[00:00] <JDizzle--> ok, so it's not announced
[00:00] <LeeSharpe> (Personally, I strongly disagree with this policy, but it is the policy.)
[00:01] <sdoherty> <JDizzle--> or does saying "so you're leaving 3 floating"? <- this is what you should do, IMO
[00:01] <JDizzle--> ok
[00:01] <JDizzle--> so he doesn't get to go back and say "oops, I forgot, can I retap?"
[00:01] <LeeSharpe> sdoherty: I agree that's what you SHOULD do, but I cannot, based on policy, force him to.
[00:01] <LeeSharpe> But I don't think anybody would allow the player to back up.
[00:01] <JDizzle--> ok
[00:02] <sdoherty> right.
[00:02] <Yawgatog> Go to second main, boom, mana burn
[00:03] <JDizzle--> I know you have to remind the dude about the mana
[00:03] <LeeSharpe> Go to combat, boom, mana burn.
[00:03] <Yawgatog> Well, yeah
[00:03] <Yawgatog> That seems contrary to the new, intent-friendly DCI
[00:03] <sdoherty> well, if mana is in pool in 1st main, then burn at combay
[00:03] <LeeSharpe> Yawgatog: Which is why I dislike the policy.
[00:03] <JDizzle--> isn't that misrepresenting the game state?
[00:03] <JDizzle--> like, if I don't remind him before he attacks
[00:03] <LeeSharpe> JDizzle--: Yes.
[00:03] <JDizzle--> and then say "so you burn?"
[00:03] <LeeSharpe> You need to remind him of the burn once the phase has ended.
[00:04] <JDizzle--> ok
[00:04] <LeeSharpe> But you don't need to remind him before he gets to use the mana.
[00:04] <JDizzle--> ok
[00:04] <JDizzle--> so if he forgets and I remember, he burns
<sdoherty> currently mana doesn't need to be announced when it is put into mana pool.

[epeeguy]

This is relevant because in the above tap 3 lands, announce Intuition with 4 drain mana floating example, assuming at least two of the lands tapped produce coloured mana, I thought you were supposed to inquire as to how much of what mana is still floating.  So then if intuition-casting-person goes "huh?" it means you have to remind them about their Drain mana.

This is, in part, correct.  As indicated by both Lee and Sean, what is going to effectively happen is that the Mana Drain is going to burn (which is why I brought up the one scenario regarding the draw for turn then swing, as this would be an example of that).  I've ruled that way in the past when it was abundently clear that the Mana Drain player has been using the typical shortcut and for whatever reason simply didn't use the mana.  If I did not make that clear enough, then I apologize for that.  However, you do have to ensure that the game state is accurate and that there is no discrepancy in one player's understanding versus another's.  This is why your example is very relevent to this situation; you also need to ensure what mana is being used to play a spell, and what mana is left (which was the second scenario I mentioned, where the player plays spells and abilities using mana and it is unclear exactly what mana is being used or even if he is aware of what mana he has available).

Afterall, if your opponent taps for , and then plays Intuition, it makes a huge impact to know whether or not he used {R} to play the Intuition or {2} and still has {R}{2} floating when you make your decision regarding which card he gets.  You can't simply assume what he used, and you absolutely cannot try to force him to use a certain type of mana either.  So, you do have to ask this question (and this was the point I was trying to make).  This is also why Jacob's example is relevent in this situation (as a lot of things could potentially occur depending on what was tapped for Frantic Search).  Or, at the very least, ensure that he isn't confused about the game state and potentially not fully aware of something that is occuring.  Which is why I brought up the other example regarding the Chalice triggering; you don't have to say it triggers, just that you need to ensure that the opponent doesn't resolve the spell that the Chalice would counter.

This is why you can't deliberately withhold that information regarding the change in game state (especially when a lot of things start occuring, and the game state is being changed in several ways).  Because it can potentially construed that you are attempting to gain an advantage by using this difference in understanding, and therefore possibly misrepresenting the game state.  Hence, why it could be Cheating.  Or, it could be that your opponent did all of this stuff, and then you realize after the fact when he goes to swing with his creatures that he didn't use the mana from his Mana Drain.

So, to summarize:

1.)  The player of the Mana Drain is responsible for the use of the mana from the Mana Drain.  You do not need to remind them to use it.
2.)  However, you still have to ensure the accuracy of the game state.  This means if it is unclear what has happened when your opponent started playing spells and abilities with the Mana Drain mana in their pool, you have to make certain of what is going on and what mana they used or if they have any floating.  You cannot make assumptions regarding this, nor can you allow your opponent to not clearly represent what has happened (even if they forgot about the trigger and simply cast the spell using the mana from what they tapped).

[Limbo]

1.)  The player of the Mana Drain is responsible for the use of the mana from the Mana Drain.  You do not need to remind them to use it.
2.)  However, you still have to ensure the accuracy of the game state.  This means if it is unclear what has happened when your opponent started playing spells and abilities with the Mana Drain mana in their pool, you have to make certain of what is going on and what mana they used or if they have any floating.  You cannot make assumptions regarding this, nor can you allow your opponent to not clearly represent what has happened (even if they forgot about the trigger and simply cast the spell using the mana from what they tapped).

I totally agree with point 1. However, point 2 is an entirely different matter. My opinion is that the difference in game-state can only occur when the phase ends and the mana-burn rule is applied.

Example : When player A has mana-drain mana available, player B can assume that player A will use it to pay for colorless costs in spells. So if player A taps three islands and has three colorless mana available, and plays intuition, player B can safely assume that at that point, player A has 1UU floating.

Allowing player A to still use the mana after he declared attackers (or declared end of turn), by returning the game-state, gives player A a lot of advantages over player B. Not only can player A try to dodge mana-burn by "forgetting having the mana" and hoping player B also forgets, with no penalty at all (both players "forgot" the existence of the mana), player A can also see if player B is wanting to cast spells somewhere during the course of player A's turn, then go "Oh, I still had mana floating from mana drain", get the game returned to a previous state, and use the new information to his/her advantage.

In short, reminding a player that he/she takes mana burn when he declares a new phase seems the best option to me. This prevents abuse / tricks from either side and keeps the player playing with mana drains responsible for remembering in time. Players that choose to remind the opponent that the opponent has drain mana available can still do so (sportsmanship).

A sidenote: I also have seen people burn to death during a tournament by forgetting to use drain mana, while having the ability to use it with cards in their hand. They just accepted the game-loss (as a result of zero life, not judge-ruling) because they just accepted they made a stupid mistake, and deserved to pay for it.

[epeeguy]

I totally agree with point 1. However, point 2 is an entirely different matter. My opinion is that the difference in game-state can only occur when the phase ends and the mana-burn rule is applied.

While I understand your examples and what you are saying, I cannot fully agree with what you are saying here.  I can only suggest that it is in your best interest to ensure the accuracy of the game state, especially when game actions are taken that muddy up the waters (such as playing spells and abilities that adjust the total amount of mana in the mana pool).  While I agree that a player who fails to use their mana should take mana burn from it, I do not agree that the opponent can allow the game state to become confused and allow "two game states" to exist (to quote Elf on this) where one player knows what is happening and the other doesn't.  That's crossing the line to me.

[Limbo]

The problem is that if "the use of mana" is used as a trigger to remind somebody about mana they have available because of mana drain, there is an inconsistency created.

Situation A: Player A uses mana somehow, and is reminded by player B that he / she has mana drain mana. As a result, player A can change his gameplan at that moment to the best of his / her abilities (the announced spell / ability still has to take place), by using colorles mana instead of colored mana or whatever. Here, in a lot of cases, player A can still approximate a very good / the best play available to him/her as though without forgetting about the mana.

Situation B: Player A does not use mana, and is reminded by player B that he / she takes mana burn because of unused mana drain mana. In this case, player A cannot change the gameplan according to the rules, as the difference in gamestate only occurred because of the burn (player B is changing lifetotals, and reminds player A to do the same).

The difference in these two situations is huge and unfair (in situation A player A has the advantage, in situation B player B has the advantage). This difference is unacceptable in my eyes. Is it impossible with the current rules to make both situations have the same conclusion? I find that hard to believe.

As I have seen a lot of rulings based on "the players intention was clear", how about this: If a player announces gifts ungiven, and taps two islands and a mana crypt while announcing it, the intention is obviously that he / she is tapping the mana-sources to pay for the gifts ungiven. The lack / presence of mana drain mana does not change the players intentions(tapping 4 for a spell of 4 mana), so I'd say it is reasonable that an opponent is allowed to be silent about the presence of mana drain mana, and only reminding at the point of mana-burn application. If the player casting the gifts used drain-mana, he / she should say so on announcement (when making mana payments), to make his / her intentions clear.

I understand the reasoning behind the rulings at what place in the turn you should remind a player, but as you can see, I completely disagree because of the huge difference in result between using / not using mana.

Added bonus: Other stuff that involves game-state (like number of spells cast during the turn, landdrops, life totals) is only compared between players when it is relevant. Life totals always, but land drops or spells cast is sometimes backtracked by both players together, using   history of gamestate (for example: I played these 2 moxen this turn, so spellcount 2). The same can be and is used for mana usage.

[epeeguy]

I understand the reasoning behind the rulings at what place in the turn you should remind a player, but as you can see, I completely disagree because of the huge difference in result between using / not using mana.

Again, I understand the points you raise.  However, I'm again forced to remind that there is a difference between having the player make the mistake themselves (which is perfectly reasonable, as you do not have to advise your opponent about their best plays) versus allowing them to believe the game state is something it isn't (which can be construed as crossing the line of what is acceptable).  Especially in circumstances where multiple things have occured and it is important to track what mana is being used.

Yes, you make a point about "intent" here.  However, it is very difficult to assume intent about certain things (which is why the entire "Ruling by Intent" has been confused to mean a lot more than it should mean).  It is one thing to understand the intent of a player who plays Tooth and Nail and puts the card in their graveyard first.  It's quite another to assume their intent when they play a Frantic Search and tap their mana (did they intend to float that mana and use mana available from the Mana Drain, or did they intend to use that mana to play the Frantic Search?).

But consider, if the Player A simply swung with his creatures and "appeared" to ignore the mana in his pool (whether because he forgot about it or not), was his intent that he meant to use the mana?  Likely no (at least to me), given the immediacy of the actions taken.  But, if Player A were to play spells and abilities during his main phase, why wouldn't he intend to use that mana?  The answer is that he likely would (again, at least to me), if he'd remembered it (which is especially true if he'd previously been using that mana).  I can only say that a judge would look at this situation and have to evaluate all the circumstances present.

I understand why you may feel it is giving up "vital information" that could let you win (such as letting the person suffer mana burn because they didn't use the Mana Drain mana).  Or that it seems that the situations are not equally fair.  All I'm suggesting is that it may be better to ensure the accuracy of the game state, so that there is no confusion regarding what occured here.  The policy certainly makes it clear that you don't have to say anything at all, only that you need to ensure the accuracy of the game state (and that is what may be enforced differently by different judges depending on differing circumstances).

[Moxlotus]

...debate/questions...[00:04] <JDizzle--> so if he forgets and I remember, he burns

That answers the opponent tapping 3 lands for intuition even with mana floating.  The judges think you should say "so you leave 3 floating," but you can keep your mouth shut if you want.



On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:58 PM, Philip Schmitt wrote:

> Another question:
>
> I get 4 drain mana this turn.  I have 3 lands in play.
>  My opponent has 5.  At the beginning of the
> mainphase, I don't announce the mana trigger (I have
> been told by judges that triggered effects that don't
> target, such as Drain, always happen, whether or not
> it is announced.
>
> I play Intuition, tapping my 3 lands.  My opponent
> taps down to play a Power Sink for 4.  I use my 4
> drain mana that he forgot about.  Would this be
> misrepresenting the game state?  Would this be
> cheating?


A: At a minimum it is misrepresenting the game state as you have not  
pointed out this triggered ability.  It is cheating if you purposely  
did not mention the Mana Drain delayed triggered ability in order to  
gain an advantage.  For example if you knew that your opponent had  
Power Sink in hand and wanted to attempt to trick him, then yes you  
are cheating.  It is up to a judge to determine which of these is the  
case.

-Chris

That answers my Power sink question.



It almost seems that if it is your Drain and you use it to your advantage by not announcing mana, then you are misrepresenting the game.  But if it is your opponent's Drain, you aren't misrepresenting the game state and your opponent will take burn if you you remember-even if he was tapping 3 lands for Intuition.

[epeeguy]

It almost seems that if it is your Drain and you use it to your advantage by not announcing mana, then you are misrepresenting the game.  But if it is your opponent's Drain, you aren't misrepresenting the game state and your opponent will take burn if you you remember-even if he was tapping 3 lands for Intuition.

I can only say that it may not be as clear cut as that.  Different judges may handle the situation differently depending upon the specific circumstances that arise (and there were judges who indicated that they felt Player B was cheating when they intentionally failed to mention the Mana Drain mana of Player A).  It is best to ask the question of the head judge of the event you are participating in.

[Limbo]

But consider, if the Player A simply swung with his creatures and "appeared" to ignore the mana in his pool (whether because he forgot about it or not), was his intent that he meant to use the mana?  Likely no (at least to me), given the immediacy of the actions taken.  But, if Player A were to play spells and abilities during his main phase, why wouldn't he intend to use that mana?  The answer is that he likely would (again, at least to me), if he'd remembered it (which is especially true if he'd previously been using that mana).  I can only say that a judge would look at this situation and have to evaluate all the circumstances present.

An example that might take place: A player has 2 islands up, and drains something for 3. During his first main phase in the following turn, he gains 3 mana, but forgets about it. He plays a land and looks at his hand, sees gifts ungiven, realizes it costs 4 mana (while he thinks he has 3), and passes the turn, because he "can't" play the gifts. He burns for 3. How does that calculate into your intent-equation?

And you are right about this : the judge decides (as always), but that doesn't mean we can try to find a way for judges to rule in the fairest possible way.

[epeeguy]

An example that might take place: A player has 2 islands up, and drains something for 3. During his first main phase in the following turn, he gains 3 mana, but forgets about it. He plays a land and looks at his hand, sees gifts ungiven, realizes it costs 4 mana (while he thinks he has 3), and passes the turn, because he "can't" play the gifts. He burns for 3. How does that calculate into your intent-equation?

I would have to look at what else had happened that game, whether or not he'd been playing with the shortcut (that is simply resolving the Mana Drain trigger and using the mana for spells and abilities), what else had been occuring, etc.  Likely, he'd simply burn for 3 as prior play would indicate that he'd been using the mana and simply forgot this time.  If he chooses to pass priority on an empty stack, without realizing the play was possible, then that was his play mistake.  This is no different than the opponent not having to remind the player to utilize the triggered ability from a Disciple of the Vault (the life loss from the triggered is "may", and the general answer in this situation is that unless you specify that you are choosing to do something, it is given that you choose not to do that something).  Note: though this answer may differ based on the exact circumstances present in any given situation, and I can imagine scenarios where this would not even be close to my answer, and this is not a "one size fits all" answer.

As I said, it's only when there is a potential for misunderstanding what has occured (for example, exactly what mana is being used and when other sources have been used and there is the potential confusion as to what is going on) that the opponent should check on certain things to ensure there is no subsequent confusion.  That is, to me, perfectly reasonable given the circumstances (as I would want to verify what mana my opponent used when they had certain mana floating).

And you are right about this : the judge decides (as always), but that doesn't mean we can try to find a way for judges to rule in the fairest possible way.

What is considered "fair" to one person, isn't always considered "fair" to another.  And sometimes the correct answer is not "fair" to either player.  Sometimes a judge simply goes for what is reasonable in a given circumstance to ensure that the integrity of the game is preserved based on what appears to have happened.  And, unfortunately, that may upset one or both players.

[forests failed you]

Firstly, let me say thanks to everyone who has helped to try and work through this problem, because it has been bugging me for quite some time. 

So let me see if I have this straight.

1. If a trigger has to go onto the stack, such as Mana Drain's ability, it is automatically assumed that it happened even if both players do not acknowledge it and pass priority. 

2. It is not necessarily the opponent's responsibility (the person without Mana Drain mana) to remind the active player that there is Mana Drain mana in their pool;  Unless, it directly affects the game state, i.e. a situation where it would be indiscernible to tell what color mana was still floating in the mana pool (there is three mana drain mana in the pool and a player taps three Islands to cast intuition).


Is this a fair summary of what has been stated thus far?  And also, has anyone else grown completely sick of typing the word 'mana' in this discussion?

[epeeguy]

1. If a trigger has to go onto the stack, such as Mana Drain's ability, it is automatically assumed that it happened even if both players do not acknowledge it and pass priority. 

Generally speaking correct.  Though, it should be noted that a player can respond to Mana Drain's triggered ability (it's not a mana ability) with a spell or ability.  For example, you can respond to Mana Drain with Abeyance or Orim's Chant to prevent them from being able to use the mana at all (the ability will still resolve, but without being able to play spells or abilities, they'll have a tough time using it).  So, there are odd situations where you may need to say something to "interrupt" the usage of the Mana Drain mana.

2. It is not necessarily the opponent's responsibility (the person without Mana Drain mana) to remind the active player that there is Mana Drain mana in their pool;  Unless, it directly affects the game state, i.e. a situation where it would be indiscernible to tell what color mana was still floating in the mana pool (there is three mana drain mana in the pool and a player taps three Islands to cast intuition).

Basically yes.  I'm sorry if I did not make that more clear early on.  But I didn't want to necessarily have it appear that I was setting precident for every other judge out there, especially as there are a few circumstances that could arise where this isn't going to be followed.  And there's no way to cover ever single situation that could exist.

[Moxlotus]

2. It is not necessarily the opponent's responsibility (the person without Mana Drain mana) to remind the active player that there is Mana Drain mana in their pool;  Unless, it directly affects the game state, i.e. a situation where it would be indiscernible to tell what color mana was still floating in the mana pool (there is three mana drain mana in the pool and a player taps three Islands to cast intuition).
 

I would say this contradicts what you said:

0:01] <sdoherty> <JDizzle--> or does saying "so you're leaving 3 floating"? <- this is what you should do, IMO
[00:01] <JDizzle--> ok
[00:01] <JDizzle--> so he doesn't get to go back and say "oops, I forgot, can I retap?"
[00:01] <LeeSharpe> sdoherty: I agree that's what you SHOULD do, but I cannot, based on policy, force him to (say "so you're leaving 3 floating").
 

00:03] <LeeSharpe> You need to remind him of the burn once the phase has ended.
[00:04] <JDizzle--> ok
[00:04] <LeeSharpe> But you don't need to remind him before he gets to use the mana.
[00:04] <JDizzle--> ok
[00:04] <JDizzle--> so if he forgets and I remember, he burns
 

[Limbo]

So basically this discussion comes down to the point that the rules say that players have to agree on the state of the game. I agree with that basic statement, but I wonder how much one is allowed to "diverge" from that basic agreement. I will clarify:

Suppose player A gains four mana from a mana drain during his first main phase. In addtion, he has two islands and two underground seas in play. Player A announces a gifts ungiven and in combination taps all four lands he controls. Player B now has several choices:

1: Informing player A about the existence of the mana drain mana. This will result in agreement about the gamestate (as required) as player A can define using the colorles mana for the gifts ungiven.

2: Inquiring if the four lands tapped are paying for the gifts ungiven, but not speaking about the mana drain mana, but still inquiring about the mana-usage. Although not directly speaking about the mana drain mana, this could tip off the opponent about forgetting mana drain mana. However, this insures agreement about the gamestate (as required) because when player A confirms using the lands to pay for gifts, player A and B are in total agreement about the gamestate (as player A used the land mana, there is still four colorles mana floating).

3: Player B does not inquire about mana usage, but instead mentally accepts a mana-pool of 1UBB, 1UUB or 1UUU (the three possible mana-pools after putting gifts on the stack, assuming keeping around colorles is useless, otherwise there are some more combinations, all resulting in four mana available) for further use during the phase. If player A now ends the phase, it will result in four manaburn, regardless of  what mana was used for the gifts. In this case, player B has not all information about the game-state, as by not asking what mana was used, he allowed "some degrees of freedom" in the floating mana. Is it allowed for player B to accept these "degrees of freedom"? Why / why not?

Scenario 1 and 2 can both result in the same outcome (player A thinking about the mana drain mana), although scenario 2 can still turn out into mana burn, if player A doesn't get the "hint". Surely no rules issues here though.

I would really like to know how scenario 3 is handled though, as again, it is open to lots of ways of interpretation, but I would like to know what choices are allowed for player B, and which are punishable by death, errr warning / cheating / whatever.

Is this a fair summary of what has been stated thus far?  And also, has anyone else grown completely sick of typing the word 'mana' in this discussion?

I was considering adding a shortcut for the word mana drain mana

[epeeguy]

I would say this contradicts what you said:

I think you misunderstand the critical difference (as well as taking Lee and Sean's comments out of perspective).  As noted, you're not required to remind your opponent that they have mana from the Mana Drain.  However, in situations where it could become confused as to what mana is being used and whether or not mana from the Mana Drain is being used, then it is reasonable to verify this.  Especially if it is important what mana is being floated and what mana is not being floated.  Lee and Sean only specifically mentioned a situation where the Mana Drain trigger was resolved and the player went from one phase to the next; they didn't go into detail about how this might change in different situations.  Hence why I cautioned against taken this as a "blanket" statement that could change depending on differing situations (they did not, for example, discuss what happens when other things happen and the game actions are taken that could adjust the game state).  Knowing Lee and Sean, I doubt very much that they absolutely intended these statements to cover "all the bases".

Again, as I said, this is what is reasonable to do.  Is it required?  No (though you tread the line between what is reasonable and what could be considered Cheating and Misrepresentation), as it is the player's mana and they are responsible for using it or not using it.  You need not (and are not required to) ensure the mana's use at all.  But, you still have a requirement to ensure the accuracy of the game state (hence why you need to take care of the mana burn from unused mana) and to ensure that there is no confusion.  This is where you may need to step in and make certain about what mana is being used.  And, as Limbo notes, you can verify that they paid for Gifts by tapping their lands and not using the Mana Drain mana at all (it's not particular sporting, but neither is it unsporting).

Which is probably a good idea if they tap that mana all at once, you do something (feeling they used that mana and not the Mana Drain mana) and then they do something else using the mana you thought they had used.

[Limbo]

And, as Limbo notes, you can verify that they paid for Gifts by tapping their lands and not using the Mana Drain mana at all (it's not particular sporting, but neither is it unsporting).

I think we have reached an agreement of some sort. Thing is, what action I would take cannot be covered under a single simple blanker either, as sportsmanship (at least in my case) can be dependent of the sportsmanship of the opponent (if my opponent is unfriendly / displays unsportsmanship, I am more likely to "catch" him on such a mistake, instead of allowing a take-back). Eye for an eye...